AgWired.com

Since I started blogging (February, 2002) I’ve probably helped a couple of dozen folks get started but none drank the blog Kool-Aid like long-time friend Chuck Zimmerman. He didn’t just take a sip, he’s started chugging and hasn’t stopped. And his blog, AgWired.com is rapidly becoming one of the best sources for news about agriculture in the midwest. His focus is agrimarketing but he’s branching out quickly.

Chuck is a blogging machine. He is single-handedly covering more news than a bus-load of NAFB reporters and tired old print publications. He recently rolled out a new look and his blog is easily the best looking ag site on the net. Chuck is a classic example of citizen journalism. From their home, Chuck and his wife Cindy are demonstrating how just two sharp people armed with a laptop and a digital camera can tell a story. Tell a lot of stories.

Prediction: long after a lot of tired old print publications go belly up and begin collecting dust in the basement, AgWired.com will be a major source for agriculture news for thousands of daily readers. You heard it here.

Arianna Huffington’s new blog

It has generated a lot buzz. It feels heavily “produced” to me. Not blog-like in the (can we say “traditional” already?) traditional senses. But, man, they have some pretty witty folks banging out the posts.

My houseboy just informed me that he has located a blog named Huffington is Full of Crap. I would like to inform the smelly blue-collar drone who named this site that while I am sure it was really funny when you mentioned it to your friends down at the labor pool, Arianna is not amused at all, and when she finds out who owns the land on which you park your trailer, she will marry him and make him evict you.

But so does The Onion. And that’s what Huffington’s Toast feels like to me. A well done humor magazine.

Business Week: “Blogs Will Change Your Business”

I haven’t seen it, but Doc says it’s the cover story (May 2, 2005) in Business Week. In Blogs Will Change Your Business, Stephen Baker and Heather Green offer this warning: “Look past the yakkers, hobbyists, and political mobs. Your customers and rivals are figuring blogs out. Our advice: Catch up…or catch you later.”

There are some 9 million blogs out there, with 40,000 new ones popping up each day. Some discuss poetry, others constitutional law. And, yes, many are plain silly. Let’s assume that 99.9% are off point. So what? That leaves some 40 new ones every day that could be talking about your business, engaging your employees, or leaking those merger discussions you thought were hush-hush.

While you may be putting it off, you can bet that your competitors are exploring ways to harvest new ideas from blogs, sprinkle ads into them, and yes, find out what you and other competitors are up to.

The divide between the publishers and the public is collapsing. This turns mass media upside down. It creates media of the masses.

Companies over the past few centuries have gotten used to shaping their message. Now they’re losing control of it.

The dot-com era was powered by companies — complete with programmers, marketing budgets, Aeron chairs, and burn rates. The masses of bloggers, by contrast, are normal folks with computers: no budget, no business plan, no burn rate, and — that’s right — no bubble.

A prediction: Mainstream media companies will master blogs as an advertising tool and take over vast commercial stretches of the blogosphere. Over the next five years, this could well divide winners and losers in media. And in the process, mainstream media will start to look more and more like — you guessed it — blogs.

We’ll see. In the meantime, I’m getting a thin spot on the top of my head from people patting and smiling when I talk about blogs. I’ve bookmarked the new blog at Business Week Online(Blogspotting.net).

Blogging NAMA

My buddy Chuck has only been blogging for a few months but he caught on fast. This week he was at the annual meeting of the National Agri Marketing Association (NAMA) and blogged everything that moved and handed out a bunch of “You’ve been blogged by ZimmComm” T-shirts.

The folks that knew about blogging we’re impressed he was covering. Those that had never heard the term (Don’t ask me how that’s possible) will remember they heard it from him first. I kept checking the official NAMA website for news from their meeting. Yawn. The days of posting a few pix and a news release a week after the event are over. And out.

cc: world.

Ian Kennedy was fortunate enough to be at the Bite blogging seminar in San Francisco this week pulled some golden nuggets from remarks by Doc Searls. I believe those that understand these ideas will thrive in the networked world, and those that do not…are fucked.

* On Blogging – email that I would write with “cc:world”
* On time it takes to blog – if you look at your email, the volume you put out in email probably exceeds what’s up on my blog.
* On marketing – it’s about conversations and not messages. Branding was a concept that P&G brought from the cattle industry. Branding is about putting out 8 boxes of soap and “singing about the difference.”
* On writing as content – John Perry Barlow once said that he never heard about content until the container business felt threatened. Once you start talking about “content” you’re already off base.
* On the Net – it’s a place, not a medium. The nodes of the net are not seperated by time or space, a blog post is immediate. You don’t send a message using “content.” You’re having a conversation in a place. You are “on the net,” you use real estate metaphors to describe the net.

As a parting thought, Doc described (paraphrasing) his life before blogging as one of, “pushing many big rocks a short way uphill” and his life now as a blogger as, “rolling many snowballs down a hill with the compelling ideas gaining mass as they roll downhill.”

“Telemarketing Wiz”

This is a true story although I have changed the names to protect the innocent and the clueless.

A couple of months ago, a friend (I’ll call him Ishmael) started a blog called “Telemarketing Wiz” and began posting all kinds of interesting stuff about telemarketing. He started hearing from others in the telemarketing business and people started linking to his blog. He got a little buzz going. Not a raging wildfire, but a little brush fire. Google “telemarketing” and his blog is #3 in the results.

One day recently, Ishmael has a meeting with someone at a publication called “Telemarketing.” (Remember, all of the names have been changed. This has nothing to do with telemarketing) The Telemarketing executive tells Ishmael they are not happy with him using the name “telemarketing” and they’d really like for him to stop. They even offered him a few worthless incentives.

Ishmael was shocked and said he’d think about it but wasn’t inclined to change the name of his blog. There were dozens of companies using the term “telemarketing”… why was the Big Publication concerned about him? Could it be that Big Publication was getting tired of hearing about Telemarketing Wiz?

Legal issues aside, this is a nice example of cluelessness on the part of MSM. I suggested to Ishmael that he change the name of his blog to “TelemarketingSucks.com,” but he’s more of a grown-up than I.

Would it have made more sense for Big Publisher to say, “We’ve noticed what you’re doing and think it’s pretty exciting. We’d like to hire you to blog for our publication.”

I’m sure that Telemarketing is a very good publication. Maybe the best. With lots of talented writers and editors and advertisers and big building with a nice lobby. A great place to read about telemarketing. But not the only place.

If Ishmael was writing a little paper newletter and mailing to a few hundred people, Big Publisher probably wouldn’t care what he called it. But the web is national. It’s global. Anybody can play. It’s no longer about who can come up with a few hundred thousand (million?)dollars to start a magazine. One guy, with a computer, and a head full of good ideas can get in the game. It’s a new day.

Blog nauseam.

Like a lot of bloggers I’m a little nuts on the subject of blogging. I’ve been thinking about this, trying to understand my fascination (fixation?). During my radio days, I was on the air for 4 or 5 hours a day, 5 or 6 days a week. And because it was a small market station in an unrated market (and I was the program director), I could do or say pretty much anything that I wanted. Or that’s the way it felt at the time. But nobody told us who we could or could not have on the talk shows and our news guys could cover any story they chose. It was very loose and a lot of fun. As for the size of our audience? Hard to say but the signal could be heard in a hundred mile radius. We assumed every many, woman and child was listening.

In the mid-eighties I started working for a radio network that served a statewide audience. In fact, it wasn’t our audience but the collective audiences of the 60+ stations that aired the programs we produced. Big audience but very little control over how much of our stuff got on the air (and I was not on the air at all).

In radio, like other forms of MSM (Mainstream Media), a handful of people decided who gets heard (or read, or seen). That’s good or bad, I suppose, depending on whether you were did the talking or the listening. And for most of the last 30 years, I was one of the people that decided who got air time and who didn’t.

I remember getting calls pitching me on some radio program the host/producer thought would be great for the network. Overnight trucker shows; hunting and fishing shows; cooking shows; home improvement shows. And we had a little canned spiel we gave them, explaining how difficult it would be to “clear” the show and then there was the challenge of finding a sponsor and blah, blah, blah. Everything I told them was true in the context of the medium of radio networks, but I was the guy with his hand on the controls, deciding who got heard and who did not. And while I probably protected innocent listeners from a lot of bad radio, I almost certainly kept some good content from reaching an audience.

Fast forward to the late nineties and creation of what we now call the blogosphere. Anybody with an Internet connection can create a website where he or she can say any damned thing they want (with photos, audio and video). And they can reach a world-wide audience, assuming they have something that audience cares to read, listen to or watch. Maybe it’s just my sixties roots showing, but I do love that. And I have a hunch it represents a powerful shift in the power structure. That’s still unfolding. If you’re Clear Channel Communications or the Federal Communications Commission or the guy that controls all media in Russia (or Iraq), a billion bloggers (and their readers) might not seem like a good thing.

I’m reminded of all those coups in banana republics where the rebels take over the newspaper and the radio station first thing. Once that’s been accomplished, the rest is just mopping up. And, yes, they can probably find a way to kill Internet access to an entire country but that’s getting harder every day.

The recent combination of blogging and radio that has produced podcasting (Rex Hammock likes the term “blogcasting” better and I tend to agree) and things will get even more interesting.

My guess is that during the earliest days of radio there was a certain amount of, “Is this cool, or what!” And blogs, blogging and bloggers will become so common they’ll hardly be worth mentioning.

Blogging, journalism and democracy

“The technology — that is, the software is democratic in and of itself. What were witnessing is a shift of power and prestige. Journalists have been accustomed to being powerful. Most people don’t like giving up power. It used to be cool and MEAN SOMETHING to be The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times or NBC or CBS or CNN … now it means less and less.”

Halley Suitt on blogging and journalism and democracy.

Mainstream media suffers from “freedom envy”

Peggy Noonan (WSJ.com) wonders if mainstream media suffers from “freedom envy” where bloggers are concerned:

Bloggers have an institutional advantage in terms of technology and form. They can post immediately. The items they post can be as long or short as they judge to be necessary. Breaking news can be one sentence long: “Malkin gets Barney Frank earwitness report.” In newspapers you have to go to the editor, explain to him why the paper should have another piece on the Eason Jordan affair, spend a day reporting it, only to find that all that’s new today is that reporter Michelle Malkin got an interview with Barney Frank. That’s not enough to merit 10 inches of newspaper space, so the Times doesn’t carry what the blogosphere had 24 hours ago.

This is a really good piece on blogging that –once upon a time– I might have forwarded to the reporters working in our newsrooms. I’ve stopped doing that. With one or two execeptions, our reporters are clueless and/or threatened by the whole notion of blogging. Don’t get it. Don’t want to get it.